Are LII women rare?
I've noticed that I don't really see women with this type talked about much. Mostly when talking about this type on threads it's about men with this type. Women seemed to be typed as xSFJ/P or XNFJ/P a lot (I can't remember those letters for each). Or women are mostly typed with xxFx over xxTx. It makes me wonder if I'm not LII. Also, if women are just more likely to be typed that way because they're women.
I see quite a few LII women in academia I think (or like in libraries) - they probably avoid a lot of idk 'common real world' places as they are introverted and a lot of ahem "basic" places in America like that are quite SEE/ESE-ish really. (so naturally you wouldn't find them there)
And they are in those places too, of course, they are most likely everywhere but they probably don't stand out as much. Some people are naturally more in the background, it's kind of funny. My sister was showing me this pic of her co-workers and there was one woman that was there but she was so much in the background I didn't even see her there until my sis pointed it out- maybe that was a LII woman lol.
I don’t think so; at least not very significantly more than the males, I think. I feel like I’ve known a somewhat equal number of each. People talk a lot about duality and sexual relationships, though, and I think there is an impression (I don’t know whether or not it’s correct) that ESEs are more often female, so LIIs get shunted into the male role there.
On the other hand, re. stereotypes, iirc Jung himself suggested women were more frequently Fe types; I can’t remember if he had the same idea about F in general, but stereotypes usually come from at least some grain of truth rather than arising from the ether. Socionics probably won’t ever be an exact science, but if there’s a widespread idea that women are disproportionately F I don’t see any particular reason not to think it could be true.
In any case it’s probably a more helpful approach to think about whether the function stack seems right, whether descriptions of the type seem generally true, and so on.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 03-19-2021 at 03:18 AM.
most possibly that all Jung types have equal quantities
To notice examples depends on where you may watch people long enough and know good to understand their types. If your significant communications happen with technical and research regions - then TN types are more often there. Though, it's more about men as women are lesser seriously associated with social occupations besides homework, also women are biologically limited in this as born and rise children.
Also. Your abbility to notice concrete types depends on your past experience - if you deal more with them (and supposed their types) then it should be easier to notice similar ones. It's easier to notice people with types which were at people much important for you in the past. People of some types may catch more of your attention (as conflictors) and so this arises a chance you'll think more about their types. etc
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
I imagine there's a 60-65:40-35 male:female split when it comes to "thinking" types. But otherwise, I have no idea how rare LIIs are.
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data
Better Than Socionics (tests)
Wikisocion
Socionics Links
A Socionics Test
Other Socionics Tests
Socionics types and Music Preference
Personality Traits of American Cities / Counties
Interesting Psychology Articles
Personality Traits Correlations
Google Scholar Alerts
Type movie suggestions
Random Pictures & Interesting Articles
Best Countries To Emigrate To, Possibly
There seems to be five times more S-types than there are N-types, and there seems to be far more F-types in the world than T-types; I'd propose that two-thirds of women are F-types. Therefore, LII women should be relatively uncommon but considering the world population, they're not an endangered type. If my guesstimates hold water, duality would be an even rarer phenomenon.
a.k.a. I/O
I don't know. Fantastic question. I assume NTs are generally male for reason that men generally are unsociable. As such, introspection is likely a thing they do when not active, rather than going off and talking to a friend. As such, more men would get typed as LII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
There's certainly far more S-types in STEM than N-types. Ijs and Eps can have stuck-up or superior demeanours but I found that this was mostly attributed to their detached processing natures and not because they felt as such. Poor love life seems to be a sign of the social media era and not a characteristic of particular types. One thing that I've noted is that many people seem to fear intellect more than a different ethnicity so the people that have both can be really shunned.Originally Posted by one
a.k.a. I/O
LOL people assume that academia is mostly made up of LII. No, it's actually mostly made up of EIE. Higher learning institutions is rigid hierarchy, which is the realm of Betas. They seek to wield power from a formalized, official position (like being a professor, some erudite special God-like being who knows all). Alpha LII is informal, despite their strong cognitive leanings are more of a conceptual realm, they just don't gravitate to hierarchical shit.
As for females with Ti lead, they are indeed rare but not as rare as the Fi leads (EII being the most rare, and ESI closely after). LSI female would likely be more abundant than LII female simply because Beta is the most common Quadra and LSI is a very common type. To be of logical type, they handle information in a very neutral manner and don't inject any emotionality into it.
The reason why it's more common for women to be typed as an ethical, at least by G is simply because that's their type. There are just more women who are ethicals. This is cognitive wiring, so it's wrong to think that it's equal opportunity for all the types. Similarly, there's a super high number of men who are logicals. Keep in mind that "logical" type doesn't mean that they're logical thinkers and that ethicals can't think logically. Logical vs. Ethical is broken down through various factors, but one of the main ones is emotionality or absence of from communication.
Yeah anything people could want to learn, they could learn on their own. I really wish that I never went to college. I'd be way further in life with working & save money for longer & not having college debt too.
True. Downfall of Ti-lead. "My logic is the best logic in the world" heh and of course people aren't going to listen when you come at them like that.
Pure chemistry is very interesting subject because it is not easily defined. Overall it has lots of heterogeneity because the nature of chemistry is just like that. It is a science that you can study when you do not want to settle down. Kind of favors globalistic mindset. Quite funnily you can see that its mindset is worlds apart from biochemistry (which is a bio-science).
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I pretty much hated school and I'm glad that I don't need to be there anymore. in the past I went to universites for socialising. I noticed a couple of betas who are very proud of their PhD but I just couldn't care less about it. lolita might be right, school enviroments are too much of a hierachy for LII. regarding op, yeah I think ILI and LII women are probably really rare.
"Those who understood - understood, the rest don't have it in them".
doesn't help that LII don't care all that much about making an impact because of low Se, so they are unlikely to change that perspective.
the majority of people who browse this site are IEI. intuition of time is the function that is interested in the psychological state of human beings. typology is a field dominated by INxx, especially IEI.
list of people who I type as IEI:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQxpXaUDIfPgz4212tV1XQuLYDCgAKLPfIsMCkFhLl8dHfHbW SnrrLjSy5ZowCcREQuILQyQDPGKXk0/pub
and a thread about IEI examples who look very similar
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...62#post1583162
people who I think are EIE:
https://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/65999-Alive-s-EIE-example
OP - just because a type might be less common, doesn't mean it's not your type. If there's no other evidence that you're mistyped, then LII most likely fits.
This is stereotypical thinking and wrong. You have to understand that EIE is the most common and versatile type so they do not appear to be what you would consider to fit into with excelling in such an abstract subject matter. You're conflating types with subjects and that's the wrong way to go about it. In any abstract/conceptual area, it will be overloaded with intuitives. It's possible that if you take the population of LII and ILE that they study/work more in abstract conceptual fields but that's not the same thing as Alpha NTs being the dominant type in that particular field. You're wrong about Alpha SFs. Just because they value Ti doesn't mean they'll be in STEM. You've already discredited EIE not being in that field when they're Ti valuer, too. No, Alpha SF's cognitive stack yields them highest in nursing and areas to do with managing people like HR and marketing, and artisans of some sort such as pastry chef (I used to work for some very amazing pastry chefs and they're ESE and I had an ESE friend who went to culinary school and became a pastry chef).
After my bachelor's, I went to school for fashion design at FIDM for 1.5 years and I excelled in garment construction, mainly tailoring. This is a prodigious fashion design school and expensive, too. The program was flooded with SFs because sensory is what's required for skilled handiwork. Even if you're not in fashion design and only majored in merchandising, you're still required to take and pass high levels of garment construction classes. If not, you'll purge from yourself the program and it is an expensive school so you don't get unlimited tries. You simply cannot escape working with your hands and you're expected to produce high quality, technically perfect pieces. My school is known amongst the fashion design school as being extremely harsh with expectations on construction. We have fashion shows to showcase our work. From the sensory perspective, I was still really pushed, even if I did excel. This is really a heavily sensory oriented arena and super competitive. I've seen countless classmates break down and cry because it was so demanding. EIE would get purged from the program early on because the work isn't abstract, it's concrete and they aren't sensory coordinated. Fashion design is actually SEE-land. If the fashion design program at your school doesn't require garment construction, then maybe they could be EIE. But if it does, which I think they would require, then they're just SEEs or ESEs that you've mistyped as EIE. Can you imagine a place with so many SFs? Shit very real, very fast.
EIE is the most common type, and most common intuitive. Plato and Aristotle are EIE and they came up with a lot of mathematical theorems. They are called the "mentor" and "actor" for the sheer reason they're able to play so many roles. They have high dimensionality Ni and Ne. Think about it.
G doesn't use any model or system when typing people and neither do I. He came up with DCNH system as a way to explain why there's so many differences between people of the same type. He came up with a way to explain what already naturally exists. And I didn't have the belief that EIEs were so common nor that they're as versatile as they are, if I didn't learn socionics 101. Looking at their functions, it actually makes sense as to why they'd be so common. It's really a remnant of MBTI that people believe that ENFJ are rare so they transfer that stereotype over to EIE in socionics. It's not the same thing and it doesn't yield the same information.
From my interactions with you, I think you're serious-minded which is why I like you. I'm also serious-minded so whatever I say do have weight to it.
When it comes to the purely or mostly abstract realm, EIE is there and there's a lot of them. Intuitives are wired to work optimally on the conceptual level. The most common sensory type in abstract/conceptual subject, it's LSI because they're Ti base. A lot of them think they're intuitives and LSI-N often comes off as appearing like LII. A lot of LSIs are in the psychology field, which is abstract/conceptual. Jung is LSI-H.
That's Fe outlook on relationship, which is the opposite of Fi outlook on relationships. Social media is constant emoting from everyone and so you don't get to know anyone on any greater level other than to deal with them on shallow levels. I'm perfectly fine with that but I don't call that a relationship or friendship. I'm very specific about describing my relations to... everything, including people. So while I say I have online friends, I don't think of them as real friends, hence I call them online friends. However, I've noticed with Alphas and Betas that they consider if they're on friendly terms with someone that they're friends or there's a bond. Simply not the case for me as a Gamma.
Reinin's dichotomy of merry vs serious basically explains this. It's about Fe vs. Fi take on "relationship." Merry types (Alpha and Beta) are Fe valuers and seek out communities to create bonds, which is more group oriented. It's the psychological position that because you're associated/affiliated with a group that there's a bond. So there is stronger group identity with merry types. Whereas it's different with serious Quadras (Gamma and Delta) due to Fi. It starts with the individuals having interests which is why they gather and so their goal is the bond that ties them together. It's not the membership of being in the same group that creates the bond, but the purpose. After the goal is fulfilled, that bond is dissolved, but if the individual members choose to maintain contact with one another on a personal level, then they can do so, but there is no requirement.
It's funny because I have a direct dual as online friend in a few servers and when I don't want deal with EIE's bullshit shenanigans no more, I'll ask her to go tame them. However, she can't stand LSIs and they have awful arguments so I'll be there and somehow I get LSI to stop being repetitive. She likes me breaking LSI's Ti and I'm still not sure how I do it but she said I do it so well, so we basically do reverse revision on a lot people in the servers because there's a lot of EIE-LSI. We somehow got united because our purposes aligned.
welp tell them how you really feel! I actually like LIIs and think their ideas are brilliant. They might not like my Se so they're probably weary with me. However, understand that they appear stuck up because their Fe is suggestive/manipulative meaning it's a very passive function and although valued, they will only show emotional response when prompted. They need practice over time to not appear "snobbish" because they are guarded but because they have role Fi, they're not going to abruptly leave you or exit the convo even if they don't care about what you say. They do try to be polite. It's actually the same thing with LSI. I find it funny that LII and LSI like Fi a lot and put effort into working on Fi, which may be why I like them.
Every type has strengths and weaknesses, but it's not equally distributed. Keep in mind not every member of the same type have the same development with their functions which is why DCNH is so amazing because it accommodates the variants within the types. And keep in mind, people have the same functions but don't use it the same. Only 30% of people actually fit the default of their type, otherwise, they'll be mistyped as something else. So while it's extremely common for EIE (for example) to be really extra and dramatic, provoke people to get emotional reactions, some are more subtle about it drawing out emotions, like EIE-H. I have 2 EIE-H friends and they're lovely people, their Fe really caused fights and fanned the flames while running and hiding behind their Se friends like me to clean up after them. Maybe to untrained eyes they'll appear as SEI or some shit cuz they have accentuated Si and that obscures their PoLR. Same with me. I'm N subtype and have both accentuated Fi and Ti which obscures my PoLR, so I don't come off as a typical SEE.
Last edited by Lolita; 03-22-2021 at 07:25 PM.
I know you didn't say there aren't SEEs in fashion sector and that's not what my previous response was saying. I told you that there aren't many EIEs or intuitive types in such a heavily sensory field. They are located in the conceptual world. Just because EIEs like fashion doesn't mean they'll enter into fashion design. You're also forgetting that they are Ti seeking and would rather be viewed as smart and logical over fashionable. That's why any perceived challenges to their credibility gets them all in a tizzy.
Sure. I know everyone have their opinion but that doesn't mean they have credible viewpoints to where I have any reason to pay any real attention to what they say. They're not obligated to take in what I say, and therefore, I'm not obliged to offer them that in return. What people don't seem to understand that I constantly reiterate is that just because people have views doesn't mean it's on the same level as G. And I don't say G as in he's someone to worship or whatever, but there's immense value in his work and he's spent the time and dedication to broaden this field so I find hobbyists elevation their opinion to be on the same level as an expert to be totally delusional. So while you totally disregard the Se aspect in my views, I disregard your's and others' Fe.
I understand your viewpoint about lack of definitive explanation with his conclusions. I've addressed this with multiple people on this forum several times, and my reply is the same- you cannot expect an all encompassing explanation from him. He can show you where you are in the socionics schematic, but it's your job to unpack your own psychological development and do due diligence. I realize that requires a lot of work for most people, which most are unwilling to do but that's just how it goes. With any typology, it's not supposed to be a fun, lighthearted, fluffy thing. This is a sector in psychology and it seeks to explain invisible human phenomena and it's going to uncover unsavory and maybe intense topics but the bulk of psychology is about mental pathology. I mean if you want to use typology like what most hobbyists do as a blanket to coddle and mask delusions, by all means, you do you, but I'm not playing along with that and there are other people who don't, either.
Now, as for your criticism that you find him lacking in foundation, he's not. You just can't access it and I don't blame him keeping a closer eye on his research. He wrote multiple studies but it's in Russian.
I don't blame you and I don't care if you dismiss him, but you're wrong. Just because people express their displeasure or they don't agree with his typings doesn't mean he's wrong nor should he modify or change something just to suit and appease people's emotional reactions. So far I've seen people on this forum constantly parroting this sentiment that you hold and I've replied the same way each time. I want to him to stick up for himself and not allowed himself to get conned and manipulated, but he's already done a fine job doing that.
As for the estimated stat I said previously, I regret I even said anything because that was something in class where we understand the context behind his answers. I didn't realize what I said would cause so many reactions but this proves to me what I've always known and that anything from G's school seem to really grate people's nerves in the general typology community because it destroys their preconceived notions and they cannot satisfactorily lodge a well composed logical argument against him. I think he does pretty well on his own sticking by his guns no matter how much heat he gets from hobbyists. My goal wasn't ever to get people to believe anything nor push his ideas. He doesn't even push his ideas. People come to his school on their own accord and he teaches them if they want to learn. Otherwise, he doesn't care who likes or dislikes his ideas. He continues to do his research and teach. I just said what I said in response to what someone asked.
[QUOTE=one;1438197]Here is the thing - all of these are not something you can prove or disprove because they are not testable. This is why you are just supposed to be inclined to judge it based on its use. If it is not useful, discard. The difference lies in one thing - accepting it as truth. As of now I don’t see DCNH as useful, so I discard it. I get more insight from my relationships when I just use basic definitions of Socionics and observe relationships irl. When there is already a standardized test and good proof to these things and I can replicate it, I’ll believe in it. But as of now, I’ll take any insight I can get because what matters is if these things have use. Like for example I might disagree of other people’s types here (not that I do that because again, I couldn’t prove it anyway) but you can still learn a lot from what kind of relationships they have with some people here and how they say they interact with the people around them. Doesn’t matter how they label the person, you can observe people you know and maybe recognize the same dynamic.
I didn't claim SEEs are good at clothing construction. I said am good at clothing construction and I'm SEE. My mom is SEE and she's also good at clothing construction too, but that's not the same as what I said. Fashion design school is SEE-land because Se in high dimensionality is required to withstand competition and will to outdo others but is intense, while Fe is needed to capture the emotional expression to wow the crowd. Se/Fe is SEE and Fe/Se is ESE and I mentioned those types as being the ones that you probably mistyped as EIE. EIE is very weak with both PoLR Si (not stable to complete physical project that is detailed) and Se HA is still weak as they cannot withstand the pressures of stress and competition. Fashion design school actually does NOT encourage the students to just run rampant with their imagination and design a bunch of impractical things that can't be constructed. It's stressed that you have to be grounded enough that your designs fit criterion and therefore is profitable and makes sense to produce the right thing that sells because there isn't unlimited funds to be so impractical. Even the fashion design majors had to take business classes (merchandising portion) so there's the valued Te HA from SEE. These elements already knocks EIE out. I think you're stuck on your observations as being right that you typed the fashion design majors as EIE and that's fine, but I'm telling you, you're wrong.
And for the record, you haven't explained why EIE can't be in high levels of abstract subject matters such as mathematics when you've already said Ti valuers flock there. Their Ni and Ne are a force to be reckoned with on the abstract plane. I don't know why you were so adamant that they can't be in STEM when that's mainly abstract/conceptual work.
Ah and again, I don't give a rat's ass about "hearing" out other people's view points. I can read what people say and not actually respond, which is what I do most of the time anyway. I guess you view me as being attacking but I'm not. I say what I say and I stick by my guns. Anyone who don't like what I say or don't believe it, that's their choice but don't expect that I owe you any sort of courtesy or respect just because you freely expressed your ideas, nor am I obligated to acknowledge what you or anyone say to me. Please be cognizant I don't owe you or anyone else any emotional allegiance and I find your multiple suggestions to be considerate for everyone's opinion to be spineless and whiny.
Speak for yourself. You can go about things however you want, but don't tell me what I should or shouldn't be doing. I don't know why you feel the need to lecture me multiple times with your morality judgements that I should or shouldn't be doing or how I should present things. I don't care about "other" people. This is not some weird commune where it's all for one and one for all shit. People should care about themselves to learn and not rely on echo chambers spreading and confirming bias. If they want to learn, pay the money to learn and take classes. If they want to get an official typing, pay to get typed. I'm not here to have people piggyback on what I learned. I already have a few people piggyback on my typing that because they think that they're like me that somehow by association they're also SEE. I literally hate leeches and you're promoting and supporting leeches.
Ok, whatever. You already showed your bias against them (and EIEs by saying they're not in STEM because you don't want to be associated with them in your major). So backtracking isn't helpful.
Last edited by Lolita; 03-22-2021 at 09:56 PM.
barely paying attention but thinking about why people would be MAD.
i paid for a typing that i expected to disagree with and i am satisfied because it gave me something to do and food for thought.
i can only understand anger stemming from either unrealistic expectations or sour grapes competitiveness.
not paying enough attention to notice this thread wasn't about gulenko.
i haven't typed any female LIIs BUT this thread made me wonder if i've mistyped my EII manager
(but the reasoning for her being LII would mirror the reasoning for gulenko correctly typing me LSI)
tip o the hat to ye
Usual environment: office, behind the desk
Food: through an intravenous line
Breeding habits: unknown
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
e_e Ti lead women are more common than people might think. Example if she thinks she is INFP, but her socionics Fi sucks, thats probably a LXI-H.
The issue is people conflate their attitude towards what they believe is their cognition vs actually evaluating their cognitive process. Like if you want to be good at something and believe that you are, that somehow makes you feel better that you are.
I find the phenomenon of LXI loving Fi and sucking ass at it is sort of endearing. But at the same time, it makes a lot of sense because Fi is their role function, and so if they feel like they should be more polite and pay more attention to what’s appropriate, then by all means. It’s just that they feel strange and disappointed around someone who has high dimensionality Fi because they’ll know they don’t really have Fi.
That's the most nonsensical thing I've heard from you yet, and this thread is where you've shown me just how out of touch with reality you are with everything. Leeches don't pay for anything. That's why they're called leeches. It's a parasitic relationship. There are people who paid for a typing from DarkAngelFireWolf69 and they expected to get their bias validated and are angry they didn't get what they wanted. Typical bitchass move. But they're not leeches.
So you have an issue with a Ph.D in psychology who's spent decades studying and expanding in his a field of expertise charging $120 USD for a typing when there's a bunch of nobodies with no credentials who make money off the typology community who fucking know less than me and they're charging $100 for a typing. Right. That makes a fucking lot of sense. People should really be grateful I'm even around to clarify anything and I do it voluntarily.
Right. Like i've said many times before, you're biased and don't like that what I revealed doesn't fit in with what you believe. You have no reason to believe they're rare.
I've already addressed this many times. It's about unrealistic expectations where they believe throwing $120 at him that would somehow make him obligated to explain everything to them. Psychological unpacking is up to the person. Do the fucking work.
God, you're so fucking dense. I've repeated myself over and over again and you still don't get it. You have no idea that you come off as a sanctimonious, dogmatic fake do-gooder. You're not even a believable ILI. Your logic is weak and the pathetic usage of Control Fi is complete shit. Just because we're "friends" on the friends list doesn't mean we're actually friends. You've established nothing with me and repeatedly lecture me on what I should do LMAO I already know what REAL ILIs are like. I suggest you use the brute force morality on other Betas. That shit don't work on Gammas.
@Lolita I don't understand how this escalated so much from One sharing that within a particular university's STEM department LII might display certain quirks... humourous enough to be notable. It spurs discussion at least, while you seem intent on shutting this down, as if there's nothing left to discuss once you have dropped your opinion and insulted contributors to the thread.
You are making bold and sweeping claims here, first summing up academia in general rather than STEM subjects, which is what was expanded on in this thread.
These "people" who assume academia is made up of a single type (LII), who are they? One only said that good structural logic is needed for STEM, and that Ti is favoured due to curriculum (and drawn out research-based study, compared to vocational training for example).
Hierarchy in academia may not be a game alpha quadra members play into, but that would not bar them from immersing themselves in their passion subject ... even if niche and with average long-term pay prospects (professor til retirement gig).
I've met at least one who was a coworker when I worked at Walmart. She cashiered overnight and that was mostly it.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few in my current work which is related to academia since it's full of NT chicks. I admit that I have a little trouble differentiating LIIs from other types, sometimes.
As for types and professors, I didn't really take STEM classes except when I had to. I took a lot of English classes. MY professors were two ILEs, an EII, an ILI, and an LIE whom I recall. One of my science professors was probably SEI but I am not too sure. I might have had an EIE or IEE professor for acting but he died before I even graduated.
I think academia tends to be pretty diverse. With STEM, especially, since STEM majors are statistically more likely to get good jobs, they probably don't aim to teach at university unless they really like people and/or have a passion for teaching, are sick of corporate and military-industrial complex BS, or are older and want to pass on their knowledge.
With Liberal Arts, wanting to be a professor is less surprising since those majors typically suck at acquiring good jobs. I'm an English major so I would know. Even if I went back to school, I still would have no idea what I would study except maybe physics since it's something I have a knack for and enjoy.
Last edited by aixelsyd; 03-24-2021 at 08:11 AM.
I think any job that is recommended for people with schizoid traits is good for them. Hence hardly seen.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I promise to not to think about you as much as you think about Duschia, you have my word.
I went to college for literature and can confirm that you can find most everyone there. I had professors from every quadra. Even in literature classes there were sometimes NTs and STs.
Where I am fe-ti is more common in woman maybe because fi tends to come off as(at times) more cold, distant, and unfriendly. I do know far more LSIs than ESIs and EIIs in girls, whether or not LIIs are more than ESIs it is diffucult to tell.
I know some LII women. But usually thinking women have less pronounced thinking than men. Some LII women give an ESI (super-ego) impression. You have to talk to them for awhile to see the type.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I know one
The rest are all males
Yes very
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
They probably just spend 90% of their life in their apartment so you never really see them
the majority of people who browse this site are IEI. intuition of time is the function that is interested in the psychological state of human beings. typology is a field dominated by INxx, especially IEI.
list of people who I type as IEI:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQxpXaUDIfPgz4212tV1XQuLYDCgAKLPfIsMCkFhLl8dHfHbW SnrrLjSy5ZowCcREQuILQyQDPGKXk0/pub
and a thread about IEI examples who look very similar
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...62#post1583162
people who I think are EIE:
https://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/65999-Alive-s-EIE-example
There are only two LIIs on the planet and they're both male, so draw your own conclusions.
They really aren't, it all depends on where you look.
No, not at all. There are many of them, both on internet and real life.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
Yes, since they're all IEIs.
In all seriousness...I mean, even the rarest type (whatever that may be) isn't actually rare. Say it's 1% of the population. That's still 79 million people. I doubt female LIIs are even as rare as 1%.
For seconds, I thought I finally witnessed the female version of Alive, how disappointing because I want a new toy to play with.
Jokes aside, that joke was really funny.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
